I'm amazed how many people expect to be taken seriously when lack of proper sentence form and cursing are a major part of their posts. I rarely respond to you of late because you're so full of piss and vinegar over a simple political discussion. If it riles you up this much, you should probably look for another hobby. Heart surgeons are salivating after reading your post.

That was true during the election. Unfortunately for those that bought into Obama's message, they're now suffering from buyer's regret now that they see what they voted into office. It's a hard lesson, but one that many naive voters needed to learn. Change isn't always best and promises are often broken once the votes are cast.

I'm a huge fan of the Bill Maher HBO series. I found his commentary at the end of the show to be indicative of what many independents and moderates on both sides of the aisle feel at this point. It was reprinted as an editorial in the LA Times.

Enough with the Obamathon - Los Angeles Times

Seriously, MBBF, I'm wondering if you realize how stupid this makes you look?

You assert a reporter is left leaning
Someone asks how is he left leaning.
You link to an article and say that proves it.
People ask how that article proves it.
You say if someone can't see it, then they're stupid.
Someone suggests you cited the Cato institute.
You say it was someone else that cited them.
Soemone links to a post where you cited the Cato institute.
You say they cuss too much and use bad grammar.

Dude, you are the jbmagic of political threads.

Often, the argument is about me. It's a great diversion to avoid talking about the administration.

1. I did not post that article to make any reference to which way he leans. That article was to back up my claims that quotes were used without citations.

2. You have every right to believe whatever you want about Mr. Zakaria.

3. Flasch is a good person.

4. Flere used a source that cited Cato. I'm well aware that I have referenced Cato as well. It's interesting that no one objected when Cato criticized the GOP, but it was hell in a handbasket when they backed them up.

5. I stand by my statement that anyone that curses to make a point needs to find a better way to make that point.

I don't see the buyer's remorse. He has an approval rating over 60%. Where are you getting your data from?

His approval rating and the approval of his policies differ greatly. Feel free to post both of them.

So you're saying everyone is upset with what he has done, but approve of him still? Would that work in reverse? Like if everyone loved his policies, would he have a low approval rating?

Believe it or not, MBBF is right. Polls are starting to show that Obama is still very popular but people are starting to disagree with some (if not a lot) of what he's doing.

He is the celebrity president. He's a tough guy not to like. I hate everythign about every policy he has, don't trust him politically but I can't help but like him.

Approval rating is never based on policies. It's based on public perception, popularity, and the presentation of the president by the press. (how about that alliteration?)

I don't think people agree with all his policies, but I do believe they feel it's necessary. I disapprove of bailouts, but I also believe neither President had much of a choice in the matter. It was necessary to keep the economy afloat. Ultimately, if his policies fail then his approval rating will take a major hit.

I disagree that approval rating is not based on policies. Bush had a low one because people realized the Iraq War was a farce and the disaster Katrina relief was. Clinton had a high one in his Presidency due to a strong economy. Reagan finished with a high one as people believed his policies helped end the Cold War and get the country back on track economically.

If anything, Bush was extremely likeable. He was the President you wanted to have a beer with. A guy who would rather spend a weekend on his ranch than a 5-star hotel. I don't doubt that perception and popularity have an impact, but it's ultimately the policies and the consequences that they have that decide the approval rating.

And my comment was directed at "buyers remorse". Obama would still crush McCain if they had another election today.

MBBF, how could you?

Gallup polled on seven different factors. Out of those seven, four got approval higher than his election percentage.

Foreign Affairs - 59
Economy - 55
Terrorism - 55
Middle East - 55

N. Korea - 47
Deficit - 46
Spending - 45

Only deficit and spending had higher disapproval numbers than McCain's election percentage (48/51). There's some discontent regarding spending/deficit, but where do you see a lot of buyer's remorse?

I don't understand why deficit, spending, and economy are separate categories.

I think we really start seeing some buyer's remorse when gas creeps back up to $3.00 -$3.50 per gallon, inflation starts to really rear its head sometime next year, and unemployment hovers around 10%.

If unemployment remains high, you aren't going to see the hyperinflation people are talking about. Unemployment helps curb inflation.

I'm rather confident in guys like Bernanke who are student of this stuff and feel they have the weapons to ensure inflation doesn't get out of hand. I think economists have learned from the mistakes of previous eras.

talk about strawmen.

What?! His approval ratings are enormous! Once again youre full of shit.

ROFLMAO, you just did this to me!

Bill Maher is wrong a lot of time but also right a lot of time and typically entertaining. I loved this line


SI

You guys do realize that your agruements with each other are completely uninteresting to the rest of the readers in this thread? So you both think the other is full of shit and they don't appreciate any of the other side's point of view. We already know that... about both of you.

EDIT: That was obviously intended for Flasch and MBBF, not sterling ice.

You know, that sounds an awful lot like Bubba. Pretty affable guy in even the face of a giant scandal and loaded with charisma. But at the end of the day, pretty much a moderate trying to keep both sides happy.

SI

I couldn't agree more. I'd LOVE it if others would stop making it about me and more about the topic at hand. Perhaps you could talk the rest of them into it. It's getting very petty and juvenile at this point. I'll stop responding to the flames at this point to respect your point of view.

I will continue to point out (or be a part of exposing) when MBBF (or anyone in a POL thread) is hypocritical (like the Short Bus stuff), continue to ask him to backup of his claims, point out when claims dont meet smell tests, continue to point out when his assertions and predictions turn out to be wrong, continue to not be shocked by Faux-shock, I will also continue to make my own opinions on topics known. Feel free to put me on your ignore list or avoid having to actually back up what you say.

Edit: That last sentence had part for everyone and part for you.

Drop the friggin' martyr act. In just about every topic you post (politics, basketball, video games, etc.), it always seems to get the point where you whine that the discussion is about you. To most people that would possibly be a clue that their approach or style possibly needs to change when it happens so repeatedly. Your act is becoming tiresome.

Agreed, but then again I didn't delve into the questions. Maybe it makes more sense if you look at all the individual responses.

I think all Presidents try to portray image to others. For Obama, it's trying to be the average Joe who wants to head out to the local burger joint and eat amongst the people. I think toward in Bush's second term there was a big disconnect from the people and him. He didn't want to be seen as much when his approval numbers were down and we didn't get the photo-ops like we had in the first term.

While I like Maher a lot and agree with him about the ridiculous media attention Obama has received, I don't think looking for positive attention is exclusive to him. I do remember a big photo-op awhlie back.

Unemployment is already near double digits. The rapid rise in oil prices, combined with a dollar that is being devalued because of all the new debt the government is saddling this nation with have reignited fears of inflation. If current policies continue, I think we'll see high unemployment rate of 7-9% and double digit inflation within the next 2-3 years.

Also if the economists had learned from their mistakes, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. I'm convinced nobody really learns from history...we simply think we're superior and more knowledgeable than those who preceeded us and then proceed to repeat it.

The more I think about it, I'm not so sure inflation is really going to be a big issue. Sure, in the past, whenever a government has had a spike in spending, there has been a related rise in the inflation figure. But in the past, most governments have had more control over their country's money supply that what the Fed has now. For the past few years the derivatives market had been adding money to the system at a much faster clip and much greater amount than the figures spent on the various bailouts and stimulus packages. So although the government is adding a ton more money to the economy, it is nowhere near the amount the private sector had been creating over the past 6 to 8 years. So overall the rate in growth of the money supply is much slower than it has been in recent years.

I agree about the inflation. But I don't see current policies continuing for that long. The current policies (i.e. massive spending) are a response to the greatest recession since the Great Depression. It would be bizarre for the government to enact a stimulus every year, even when the private sector begins to pick back up.

FWIW, I strongly doubt that we will have double digit inflation within three years.

Also, just for discussion sake, I am not sure who in the country is against Obama who was not against him from the start. FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Obama Approval Rating Exceeds 50% in States Containing 445 Electoral Votes

I take solace in the fact that many of the "experts" predicting the doom and gloom of hyperinflation were the ones that didn't think housing was a problem or that our economy was on the brink of collapse a couple years ago (Art Laffer).

I think there is a chance we'll see high inflation. I do think the high unemployment numbers will help temper that, as well as the deflationary state of our housing market. Ultimately though, the threat is and was deflation that we had to worry about. That is what we had in the Great Depression and that is what Japan dealt with during the Lost Decade. That was and is a much bigger problem to us. I think they made an effort to curb deflation by having us end up with some inflation. I don't know how you can fault Bush or Obama for that.

I do think economists know more than they did back then. I think what Paulson, Bernanke and others did was rather remarkable. They saved the economy from the brink of utter disaster. I also don't know how you can blame economists and people in the Treasury and Federal Reserve for this crisis. It was greedy crooks that did this, and incompetent politicians who felt a hands-off approach was best.

But I guess what I don't get is what you expect from our Presidents during this collapse? Did you want Bush and Obama to not save the banks? Did you not want the Fed to lower interest rates and stave off massive deflation? It seems they were all backed into a corner with few options. The best option will be some inflation that will hopefully be kept under control. Seems much better than the alternatives.

I don't understand how you can take that much money out of the economy (the end of the stimulus), without suffering another significant recession. The only alternative is making the stimulus permanent.

The hope is that by the time the stimulus wears off, the economy would have gotten itself out of the recession and the private sector growth would make up for what the government was spending.

I don't think Dubya touches Obama or Clinton when it comes to charisma, charm, and ability to sell. I think the three previous presidents all are, or try to be, down-to-earth when it comes to atleast *looking* like they can appeal to the average American (not to say they really do or don't, I'm not sure).

and much of the money was Psychological money and not 'real' money. Thus I too agree inflation will NOT be a major problem in the future outside of the spikes caused by psychology and the markets.

I agree. The private sector will have to step back up. The government spending is to try and use, to the extent possible, the slack demand in the economy. At some point, though, the private sector will have to step into that breach. If it does not, then we are fucked.

And, when it does, further federal spending at the level of the stimulus would be really bad policy b/c it would crowd out private spending. And, since the market is the better judge of how to efficiently use a dollar than the government, you would always rather the money coming from the private sector.

I think that the biggest challenge for the government re: inflation/deflation will be trying to keep credit loose when the Fed needs to start taking dollars out of the economy. I am, personally, a bit worried that private lending is still so tight when we have this much money sloshing around.

very true, lending is extremely tight right now even though the verbiage would say otherwise.

(for clarity)

Bubba = Clinton
Dubya = Bush

There's no way with a straight face that I could say what I said above about Bush. In no way did he try to be moderate or keep both sides happy.

SI

The economy may get itself out of the recession, and the private sector may very well grow, but no matter how much things improve, it will still be a huge loss of of money in the system. Things HAVE to go down (even if the "down" is to a level that's higher then the lowest depth of the current recession). Maybe that's a net improvement, but it's also creates a risk of dragging things out for a decade or more. And it still creates a double-dip recession that the American consumer/employee may not have the stomach for.

As a point of clarification, I cited a NYT article which (in a very, very small part of the article) cited the Cato Institute as saying that the GOP was full of shit, fiscally (they used other words).

Which is a bit different from saying I cited the Cato Institute "as a neutral party".

Having said that, if I were to cite Cato, it would be to underscore, as the NYT article does, that even a think-tank that aligns with the GOP's supposed views on fiscal policy doesn't think the GOP knows what it's doing.

And I agree with Cato. The GOP doesn't have any good ideas and the Democrats haven't presented any alternatives of merit. Welcome to the cluster****.

so Zacharia is cited as being left leaning and thusly cannot be 'trusted' but you ignored the fact that YOU cited Cato as being a neutral 'trusted' source....do you not see the imbalance there? This isnt about you either it's about one being ok to cite and one not being eventhough a poster (in this case you) have done the same thing.

Could you clarify what "psychological money" is?

No, things don't have to go down. There was a considerable amount of idle capacity in the system that the stimulus is designed to temporarily fill while sparking private investment to continue to fill after the government spending is over. That's why the stimulus is temporary. It may not work that way, but your position would only be true if there were no unused capacity in the system.

Think of it in a micro sense. My block's babysitter suddenly finds herself without clients due to the recession. The government gives her 100 dollars to hold her over until she can get clients again. At the end of a month things have turned around and she's back to babysitting 3 nights a week for twenty dollars a night. Now she's making 240 dollars a month instead of the 100 that the government gave her.

Good illustration - hopefully the stimulus package merely fills those kinds of gaps, though its tough to have that kind of confidence in the federal government.

I know that Idaho didn't accept the full offered amount of stimiulus because they felt some of it tied them to spending more long-term (which is a big fear in a state like Idaho with a constitutional balanced budget requirement). They did accept a boatload though, for which they presumably didn't have that concern.

Psychological money is the money that exists on one's balance sheet only. could be personal, business etc. but it allows you to feel more wealthy with your income so the savings rate goes down because you begin to look at your checking account and assets as liquid. SO when things started to unravel and the writeoffs come, and the Ponzi schemes are exposed (and effect psychologically even those unaffected directly), and the wealth begins to evaporate, the "Psychological money" dissappears from the economy alongside the actual spending.

IOW you actually get tighter than what is evidenced so inflation not only has to occur with REAL money it has to affect the psychological money too for you to see the Inflation that some of the fear mongers talk about. I dont see that happening because the consumer has gotten scared stiff so the "real" money may loosen long before the Psychological Money does.

Though Dubya didn't touch them in charisma, I'll give him credit for pushing shit he thought was best through. So far Obama has been a pussy with getting his policies passed.

to keep the "Iran" thread clean:

I do not think it is Partisan anymore to call out an individual's claims, facts, and cites. MBBF consistently is called out on it for his lack of fact and then he hides behind the partisan veil. Refuses to admit when he has misguessed an outcome and parses words as well as Clinton ever did.

I think it is no longer Partisan is my point but is simply pointed at the same offender who doesnt seem to care even when he hit rock bottom on the whole bowling / short bus episode.

On the same note, it is apparently no longer treasonable to criticize the President vis-a-vis foreign policy during an international crisis.

It's also no longer treasonous to vote against funding the troops in the middle of two wars.

you forgot to add "that you voted to start and then continue"

I know you're both intentionally exagerating for effect, but all you're really criticizing is people's OPINIONS that one should support the president in a time of war. I don't have that opinion myself, but that's just a free speech opinion like any other. It's a little ironic to label someone else's expression of free spreech (which includes the right to criticize others for speaking) as advocating charges for "treason".

No, I'm commenting on very specific charges of treasonous behavior leveled by some in the GOP for the same things they are doing now.

I'm fine with voting against a funding bill or speaking out on the Iranian crisis, but I'd at least like it to be recognized that some of the same people that are supporting these actions now were calling them treasonous as recently as during the election campaign.

Someone said that people that criticized Bush should be charged with treason? I didn't realize that. I mean, EVERY conceivable sentiment has been stated on some wacky blog, but legitimate people were calling for treason charges?

Can you name someone that did that both of those things? (including calling for treason charges) This "these are the same people" argument is hugely popular around here right now and I think it's totally misleading. I could say, "These Obama supporters are the same people that think Bush planned 9/11, so their opinions can't be taken seriously". I could definitely find Obama supporters on the internet that think Bush planned 9/11, but that doesn't say anything at all about Obama supoprters that don't.

I'd agree if I said all of the GOP, but I specifically said, "some of the same". I don't think the entirety of Republicans or conservatives or whatever group you want to define has the same opinion. However, just go back through the debates on war spending in 2007/2008 or McCain and Palin's criticisms of Obama for voting against funding the troops or the attacks on Kerry for the same issue or calls for bringing back the sedition act during the Iraq war or etc...

I'm not trying to tar all Republicans, especially considering that a number of prominent GOPers, including Lugar and Nicholas Burns, have been very responsible about Iran, but when I see McCain or Cantor bitching about Obama's Iran policy or see the entire GOP plan to vote against troop funding I'd really like the media to point out that these same actions were considered treasonous and unamerican by many of the same elected officials as recently as last year.

For me it's a beginning to get past a pro-American/anti-American debate and hopefully recognizing that their are often legitimate reasons for debate that get silenced by cries of treason. That applies to both parties, btw.

A lot of the talking heads did. Guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc. I don't know if they called for charges to be pushed against people specifically, but they did allude to the fact that those criticizing a President during war and while he was overseas is treasonous. They attacked politicians and entertainers (Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, etc) for this. You also had politicians like Bachmann and Inhofe doing the same.

You can't tell me that you missed that party calling for treason charges on the New York Times for reporting on illegal wiretapping?

They're all goofballs if they used that word, and certainly hypocrites if they criticize Obama now. I never heard them say that, but I don't watch FoxNews. It just sounded like one of those exagerations that can get grouped in with fact (like that Dick Cheney stated there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda), but if people were really saying that, then ya.

There was a LOT of discussion about various things being treason. Most of the GOP talking heads threw that word around a bunch. I'm pretty sure I remember Obama being called treasonous because he said The Surge wouldn't work which supposedly was tantamount to giving aid to the enemy.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't an exaggeration.

Oops, I mean to say the myth that Cheney "lied" about there being a link between 9/11 and Iraq. That came up a few pages back, and it was response to accuasations of "lying" when Cheney specifically said that this was something that some foreign government had said. Obviously Al-Qaeda had a presence in Iraq and was sheltered there (no different than many middle-eastern countries) Misleading more than a "lie". It just annoys me when that word is thrown around with recklessness, because it's a very serious allegation for a government official and it's rarely backed up, especially in this context.

Lie is a difficult word. If you don't seek out the truth, but can say things with "plausible deniability," is that lie? Is it one in spirit?

That's closer to a lie, I think.

But I know it's not a lie if you say something, and through errors of people that work for you and lies of outside people, it turns out not to be true.

People throw around all the time that the Bush administration lied to start a war. That's impeachable, criminal, and I've never seen any evidence of it, and nobody credible has ever seriously contended it, beyond spirited speculation.

That doesn't mean it's not true - we don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. I just don't think we know enough for those kinds statements of "lies" to be thrown around like facts, and not be subject to that clarification that it's just speculation.

Nobody did that just now, though, I don't know what I'm rambling about.

While Cheney was very careful to not say Iraq was linked to 9/11, I still argue that in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion he and the administration did everything they could to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda in an attempt to get the public to link Iraq to 9/11. This article, from 2003, gives some of the context of the time.

This is an old, old political ploy. In order to get the public to believe A = C, tell them that A is like B and B is like C, so therefore A = C. Plus, they had the benefit of a public that was happy to believe that Hussein could be a co-conspirator in 9/11, a notion the public has (hopefully) been disabused of now.

Not to mention that the Iraq-Al Qaeda link itself was way, way overblown, especially by Cheney.

Every single piece of evidence they cited to justify invading Iraq has since been found to be wrong, hugely misunderstood, or simply based only on speculation. As I've said before in the Iraq threads, the Bush Administration may have not lied to start the war (lied outright) but they either a) bent the evidence as far as it would go without breaking to build a case or b) were so vastly incompetent so as not to be able to discern good evidence from bad evidence.

In my opinion, it's not criminal by the letter, but it's certainly criminal in spirit.

Despite this being from the Christian Science Monitor I found it to be the best detailed of the articles out at this point.

Obama’s five-prong plan to oversee financial industry | csmonitor.com

From Huffington POst live blog on Iran:


HA!

I'd like to see Hoekstra hit with a police baton a few times.

If it's not a lie, then it's incompetence and callousness toward fellow American soldiers. I know he gets ribbed on for being dumb, but I don't think he's dumb enough to really believe that bullshit intelligence that was being thrown around and laughed at by most people. Therefore I believe he simply lied. I just can't put him in the utterly stupid camp.

I wouldn't say Rush is a goofball. We've had multiple members of Congress and the head of the RNC grovel and apologize to him for daring to have a different opinion. There are few, if any Republican figures who have more power than him in the party.

Ok, we've reached my first "I'm now pissed at the new President moment". Granted, I realize that my wishes are for a draconian banking system where if you want to loan or claim to have money, you have to actually have, you know, money. Then, again I also wanted Uncle Sam to buy up the hemorrhaging banks, take out the anti-trust stick, and spin off the parts for a profit after holding them for a few years.

That said, I realize these measures were never going to happen. But I thought it was reasonable to expect some pretty strong regulations to keep us from getting close to this mess again (and, I realize, we'd get into another different mess but at least it wouldn't be this one). Instead, we get this sick joke- rather than concrete rules and regulations that can't be broken, we instead remove one regulatory body, add one, and strengthen one. You know, those regulatory bodies that were ignored and/or ienpt enough to let this happen in the first place because you're pitting underpaid government workers against their former coworkers who were hired away for 3-10X their wage to show companies how to beat the system.

Oh, and I'm really impressed that we are now requiring companies to take on a whopping 5% of the credit risk when they bundle exotic crap. When you're selling crap at an infinity-based markup, what's 5% in not even cash but credit?

SI

TX Rep John Culberson also sees the similarities between the GOP and the Iranians:

This mockery of Hoekstra is excellent:

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=petehoekstra

Once they gave them the money with no strings attached there was no hope of strong regulations. Even these weak reforms will be significantly watered down by Congress.

Hell, they're weak out of the box. How do you water down... water?

SI

Obama is too pussy to pass through any of the tough stuff. He'll do the same with health care by watering it down. Bush had really stupid ideas, but at least he had the guts to push them through and not give a shit what people think.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have style much more than the other. A moron ramming through horrible ideas is still much worse than wishy-washy nothing. However, I'd argue that we are in a time of larger issues with less of a margin of error where doing nothing is also harmful.

SI

Pussy enough? I doubt it but it's really beside the point. There are many powerful (read moneyed) interests that have skin in this game, and who also can have a major effect on the way that any given issue is portrayed. That's a tough status quo for anyone to budge.

While personally I would prefer major sweeping changes on a number of fronts, I'll be impressed with some changes that will ensure incremental yet steady movement.

I'm probably a pussy though.

Pete Hoekstra has become an internet meme. Some of these are great :D

link

Shit some of those are funny.

Things were royally fucked up and people voted him in power to fix it. Not to pussy foot around and appease everyone. The new financial regulations are half-assed just like the health care reform. He has heavy majorities in Congress thanks to people who voted for people to fix the mess. It's as good a time as any to pass major health care reform, but instead he's too worried about losing a couple approval points or upsetting a lobbying group.

Giving speeches is cute and all but maybe it's time to actually accomplish something now.

and Fareed's intro in the article:

I think you're getting mixed up on what Obama can accomplish on his own and whether or not Congress has any nads. And Harry Reid appears to have little or none.

IMO what needs to happen is for the Congressional leadership to say to the Republicans "Fine. You want to filibuster? Go for it." Make them stand up and rail about the crazy they've become for days on end. I don't think it'll get them lower than the 25% approval they currently have (and really, is there much precedence for a party going so far off the rails in the recent past?) because there will always be the true believers, but I'd be willing to bet that forcing them to filibuster will help advance the Dem agenda rather than hurt it in the long run.

Of course, you've also got that little problem of the members in charge of health reform being bought and paid for by the insurance companies/big Pharma, but that's a whole other issue. And the Blue Dogs, etc, etc.

So I'd take issue with your premise that it's all pussyfooting around/appeasement. Unfortunately, changing a broken system isn't something that will happen all at once, as much as we might wish it could.

It's not like Obama is fuckin' Gandalf, after all.

Yeah, I was hoping to see at least one filibuster this time around.

:lol: Some of you actually think Obama is going to significantly change any of our systems and/or even improve your lives? For your own sanity I hope not.

Most conservatives would love to see that as well. At some point, when you have a strong majority in both houses, you need to start taking a stand and passing some legislation that you believe is best for the country rather than what polls well.

The interesting thing with that is that issues like DADT and health care do poll well for the Dems.

Depends on the phrasing of the question. On their own (Do you like President Obama's policy proposal on XXXX?), you are correct in most instances. The current question being used by most polling groups (Do you think it's more important to reduce the deficit or XXXX?), the majority of the public supports a reduction in deficit spending. There are some great ideas in Obama's plans, but most of them force us into further deficit spending. That mitigates those ideas. If we can't afford them, should we really be doing them. President Obama talked of tightening purse-strings repeatedly. The majority of the people apparantly want to see the same from their government leaders.

Yeah, but when I see results that the number one important issue is jobs and the economy and the second is deficit reduction, it just generally reminds me that people don't know what the fuck they're doing. :)

Not disagreeing with your overall point though about question phrasing.

Obama really hasn't done much policy changes from Bush that he has railed against or gives vague speeches on what needs to change without giving much detail. Could be why his support for his policies are slipping.

Interesting news on the health care front:
Dems try to regain health care momentum - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Bush had no problem passing making major policy changes when he had a Republican majority behind him. He said he wanted a tax cut and made it happen. He said he wanted to go to war with Iraq and made it happen. A lot of his policies were bad for the country, but when he wanted something done, he made it happen.

I don't expect him to fix everything at once, but I do expect him to do something. The financial regulations he proposed were weak and catered to a lot of people who's policies got us in the mess. The health care proposals are weak and don't fix the problem at all.

He built his platform on change and fixing the system. He deserves blame when he comes in and doesn't come close to making changes.

Time to review my hopes and current state, and do a grade.

Economy. (B+). Geitner gets more credit, he seemed to be doing better now vs early on. I don't think anyone is crying with Paulson gone. Stock Market up. Banking somewhat stabilized with TARP. Auto in bankruptcy, but we all know it was going to happen sooner or later, might as well be now. Real Estate, not sure. I think residential is stabilizing but hear that commercial is the other shoe fixing to drop. Lots of regulations proposed. Government in big business (for now).

Healthcare. (B) Okay, I guess some 'massive' haul is being proposed. From what I have read, the Public Option is still in doubt and single payer is out. I am somewhat disappointed as it doesn't quite seem to be as massive as I would have liked.

Energy program. (N/A) Nothing much so far, but to be fair, he has bigger fish to fry right now.

Stabilize Iraq. (B+) He does not get all the credit, GWB gets much. Slowly withdrawing, not as fast as he promised, but it seems prudent to me. It does seem as if the political situation has stabilized somewhat also ... as evidenced by the lack of sectarian violence. Certainly a refocus in Afghanistan with the new SF commander. With Pakistan seemingly in the fight, I predict increased coordination between Pakistan and US ... and you know what that will mean for the tribal regions and OBL!

Improve world opinion of US. (A-) Certainly done in Europe, also in Lebanon as evidenced by his speech and their June parlimentary election, some in the Muslim ME as I read some reference to them thinking he is 'more' pro-Arab, but not in Israel, not sure in Iraq or other gulf-states. Interestingly, it looks as if Obama and not Hillary has been the key.

So it's win-win. American takes care of it's Iraq problem and doesn't take a hit in world opinion. Who says the two-party system doesn't work?

I still not sold on healthcare. I see no real change at all. Vague "Your going to be cover" through new revenue souces (taxes of some sort).

Excercising free speech rights within this country is one thing...giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war is something different completely. Only case that comes to my mind as treasonous is Jane Fonda's little trip to North Viet Nam at the height of the war, extolling the virtues of a North Vietnamese government that was killing American soldiers and holding American POWs. I wouldn't have let that b*tch back into the country.

In general, I think any individual or organization whose actions endanger the lives of American is treasonous.

Jane Fonda should have been executed. Period.

I agree on Fonda. I just think people have really loosened the definition of treason. Writing an article in the NY Times isn't treason, nor is having a protest about something. Selling secrets to the enemy is treason.

Yeah, the covering the cost of the new program sounded really strange to me. Not sure I understand how this can be done ... I didn't read (or they did not provide) any details.

There will be change if the public option passes for the 40M+ who are underinsured. For the rest who get the benefits through employers ... maybe not, unless to stay competitive with the public option, the other insurers/providers lower their costs.

Better than the GOP plan for $x credit.

My general opinion is...

1. You can say and print whatever you want criticizing our government and its policies.

2. When you begin to support other countries over the United States you start to get into the gray area.

3. When you take a protesting stance within our country's borders you are fine.

4. Once you take that protest outside of the borders you are more than likely committing treason.

Out of all the people recently, I think Sean Penn, based on what I know about some of the things he's done, has taken it the farthest and has probably, in my mind, committed treason.

I don't see why protesting outside the country matters. Does that mean if I visit Europe and write a mean e-mail to a friend back home about how much I hate the government, I'm committing treason?

I think it's providing aid to an enemy and helping to try and overthrow our country. The shit Robert Hannsen did is treason. Giving some dumb speeches in other countries about how you don't like the policies of our President isn't.

That seems like an awfully loose definition. Does any time anyone calls for a protest constitute treason? Why should it matter if you're local or international when you make said speech? Hell, by that definition, it seems like most of the stuff spewed by your average hate-filled commentator is treason. Are we going to line up Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc up against the wall?

SI